Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution that is cosponsored by Senator Murkowski, Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, Senator Cochran, Senator Isakson, Senator Craig, and Senator Snowe. I am submitting this resolution to honor veteran entrepreneurs and calling on the Federal Government to improve Federal contracting opportunities for service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses. They call them SDVOSBs. These veteran entrepreneurs have given so much to our country, and the Federal Government needs to honor them by utilizing their array of valuable skills. Almost 9 years ago, Congress passed the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, which directed the President to establish a goal of awarding at least 3 percent of Federal contracts to service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses. In subsequent years, however, the Federal agencies have consistently failed to reach that statutory goal. In the most recent official governmentwide report, contract awards for service-disabled, veteran- owned small businesses made up less than 1 percent of all Federal contracts. As I travel home this weekend to observe Memorial Day, I will have the great honor of being accompanied by U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Dr. James Peake, who has accepted my invitation to visit our State. Dr. Peake, a decorated combat veteran and former Army Surgeon General, is an exceptional American. An important challenge for the VA will be to provide adequate VA health facilities and services to veterans in rural areas. Dr. Peake's decision to travel from our Nation's Capital to Alaska on this important holiday shows his commitment to all veterans, particularly those who come from rural areas.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair for her patience and yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I do thank the Chair for her patience. Let me do one last thing. (The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 575 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator very much. I will close on this statement. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record. I would hope that the Senate would pay attention to it.

Mr. STEVENS. I have to tell the Senator, that is comparatively new in terms of my time in the Senate. When I first arrived here, there was bipartisan support for producing American oil. We had a coalition with Republicans and Democrats, and we worked with the administration, whether it was Republican or Democrat, to find a way to bring more oil on line, oil produced by Americans and consumed by Americans. When the opposition started on a political basis, we were then importing about 20 percent of our oil. As the opposition has continued, as I said, we now import 67 percent. That money, which would have been spent in this country producing millions of jobs, and putting people into permanent jobs, long-term jobs, is going to all these countries throughout the world because we do not have that investment. We have now what we call petrodollars, and we have to send our exports overseas to bring that money back. This chart shows that 1 million barrels of imported oil cost the American economy 20,000 jobs, and we are importing 14 million barrels a day now. So I tell the Senator, it is a recent phenomenon comparatively, and it is partisan. It started with President Clinton.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this morning when I read the Wall Street Journal, I was interested in this article: ``Energy Watchdog Warns of Oil Production Crunch.'' This is the IEA, the International Energy Agency, that makes estimates and keeps the world informed on the status of energy supplies. The conclusion in this article is that the demand for energy throughout the world continues to rise, but the supply is flat. I think there is no question that this is a problem this country faces, the problem of supply. Too often people in the Senate are unwilling to talk about the problem of supply. As a matter of fact, in 1995, President Clinton vetoed a bill that would have opened a very small portion, about 2,000 acres, of the ANWR coastal plain, which is a million and a half acres set aside for oil exploration. It would have opened it to oil and gas development. That was shortsighted, a mistake, and it has had a devastating effect on Americans. As this article in the Wall Street Journal points out, it predicts global demand for oil of 116 million barrels per day by 2030. Today the world's demand is only 87 million barrels a day, and we are paying $135 for each of those barrels. As the demand continues to rise--and we know it will--so will the cost. It will become higher and higher. This is what I have been trying to say now for 20 years in the Senate. We should be able to produce more of America's oil, and we import today 67 percent of our oil. During the oil embargo in the 1970s, we imported about 34 percent. We are almost totally dependent now on oil from offshore. American oil is not available to this country. The alarming fact is, the military is the largest consumer of oil in the country. It uses about 4.8 billion gallons of oil per year. The problem really is, if we had an embargo today, we could not sustain our military, let alone our essential infrastructure. Our economy could not survive another embargo. We need to realize we can produce American energy to meet our needs. If we produce it over a period of years, the price will be stabilized. The interesting thing is, on May 1--right here on the Senate floor--the senior Senator from New York called drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ``plain wrong.'' He said it was an ``old saw.'' He said the field's probable 1 million barrels a day would reduce gas prices ``only a penny a gallon.'' Then, on May 11, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, said: There is one way to get the price of oil down and it's two words--Saudi Arabia. If they were to increase 800,000 barrels per day, the price would come down probably 35 to 50 cents a gallon. That's a lot. Now, why would 800,000 barrels of Saudi oil reduce gas prices 50 cents a gallon and 1 million barrels of American-produced oil from our State reduce the price at the pump only a penny? As a matter of fact, the Senator from New York said this extra supply from Saudi Arabia would probably reduce the price of a gallon of gas by 62 cents before it was all over. Imagine that: 800,000 barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia could bring down the price of a gallon of gasoline by 62 cents. There is an absolute inconsistency with what the Senator from New York has told the Senate. I find that appalling on a thing such as the oil supply now, in view of the price of gasoline for Americans at the pump. They are paying the price because of President Clinton. They are paying the price because of stubborn opposition to develop the resources in my State. Now, they tell us that drilling in the arctic could harm the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It will not. As a matter of fact, the land we are going to develop was set aside in the act of 1980, a million and a half acres in the Arctic Plain, so it could be explored. It will not be part of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge until the exploration and development of that area is over. I think there is no question we have to find a way to have the Members of this body make up their minds: What is the problem America faces today? It is supply. Our demand is increasing, like the rest of the world, but we do not have an American supply of oil. Off our shores, and in the deep water off Alaska, there is a bountiful supply of oil. We have two-thirds of the Continental Shelf of the United States, and there is only one well on that two-thirds of the Continental Shelf. If you look over to the other side of the Bering Straits in Russia-- Russia, which was a net importer of oil just 20 years ago, now is a net exporter of oil. Why? Because they developed the OCS off their shores. They now have a strong economy in Russia. Why? Because they do not export petrodollars anymore. They use money in their own country to finance development in their own country. We have to make up our minds whether we are going to face blind opposition, incorrect, and uninformed opposition, or whether we are going to take the actions needed to develop American oil to meet American demand, and whether we are going to use the deep water off our shores to produce oil as does the rest of the world. Norway produces oil off their shores. Britain produces oil off their shores. As a matter of fact, we produce oil off our southern shore, but we are prevented from producing oil off our northern shore. It is absolutely inconsistent and irrational what we are facing. Our pipeline, at its peak, was transporting 2.1 million barrels of oil to the west coast of the United States. Today, it is producing about 700,000 barrels a day. It is two-thirds empty, in effect. It would not need a new pipeline to carry the oil that would be produced in ANWR. It is there. It could carry more than 1 million barrels a day easily. Yet it has been opposed. It has been opposed for over 20 years, by the same irrational people who come to the floor and say: Oh, oh, Saudi Arabia, produce more oil. Produce 800,000 barrels of oil a day, and we can probably expect gas prices at the pump to come down 62 cents. But if you bring 1 million barrels of oil down from Alaska, it is only going to affect the price by a penny. I have to tell you, we have to have smarter energy solutions. I hope the time will come when we have a rational debate on this floor. I am reminded of that rational debate when we finally approved the legislation that brought about the construction of the Alaska oil pipeline in the 1970s. We waited 4 years for that pipeline to start because of stubborn opposition from the extreme environmentalists. It was finally overcome. That opposition was overcome by an act that was started right here on the floor of the Senate, which closed the courts of the United States to any further litigation over building that pipeline. We were just following the oil embargo. America realized we had to have more American oil. There was no filibuster on this floor. The vote was 49 to 49, and that tie was broken by the then-Vice President. Now, what has happened? Why should every time we bring up ANWR we have a filibuster? Why can't we bring to the American continent the resources of the continent that happen to be in our State?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Dr. Rufus Judson Pearson, Jr., of Southern Pines, NC, passed away in Tamarac, Fl. on Sunday, May 11, 2008 after a prolonged illness and went to be with the Lord and to the side of his beloved wife, Emily. Dr. Pearson, the former attending physician to the U.S. Congress, was born in Atlanta, GA, October 8, 1915, the son of Rufus J. Pearson, M.D., and Myrtle Padgett of Richland, GA. He attended the University of Florida and received his doctor of medicine degree from Emory University in 1938 at the age of 22. He trained at Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn and at Grady Hospital in Atlanta and subsequently had a year of intensive training in cardiovascular Diseases offered by Harvard Medical School at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, under the tutelage of renowned cardiologist Dr. Paul Dudley White. Dr. Pearson was fellow of the American College of Physicians, the American College of Cardiology, the Scientific Council, American Heart Association, and member, American Medical Association. He was certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine and by the Sub-specialty Board in Cardiovascular Disease. In May of 1939, following first year of internship, he married the former Emily Virginia Timmerman of Atlanta, GA, whom he met during his first year as a medical student at Emory. During World War II, he served overseas as a naval medical officer, and after the war, he entered the private practice of internal medicine in Jacksonville, FL. Shortly after the outbreak of the Korean crisis in 1950, he was recalled to Active Duty and subsequently decided to make the Navy a career. He rose to prominence in the Medical Corps while serving as chief of cardiology at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, from 1955 to 1961 during the period when open-heart surgery was being pioneered. He later served as chief of medicine at the Naval Hospitals in Charleston, SC and Portsmouth, VA. In 1965, he returned to the al Hospital at Bethesda to serve as director of clinical services and chief of medicine. To each of these assignments, he brought a high level of professional competence, coupled with dynamic leadership, drive and imagination. In 1966, at the request of speaker John McCormack and Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield and by joint concurrence of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, Dr. Pearson was assigned as the attending physician to Congress, a position he held for almost 7 years and only the second physician to ever hold that post. He brought to this unique position exceptional skill, innovation, and farsighted leadership, effecting numerous improvements to the health care delivery system in the Capitol complex. He was highly regarded by Members of the House and Senate, not only as skilled physician, but also as a friend and confidant to many, earning the respect of the Nation's legislators and their staffs. On numerous occasions--his praises by Members of the House and Senate were made a matter of record in the Congressional Record. On such comment offered by Senator Aiken from Vermont is quoted in the Record: Dr. Pearson will probably be missed as much as anyone who as ever has worked in the Capitol. It did not matter what we called him. We started out calling him ``Admiral,'' and pretty soon we called him ``Doctor.'' Finally, he got to be known as ``Jud'' and his wife as Emily. They certainly are people with whom we could be very proud to have worked. And another quote from Senator Mansfield of Montana: Dr. Pearson has created a medical facility in the Capitol that is almost unequaled. His main purpose was our health and well being, but also he was there to offer his friendship and advice whether it be for us, our families, or our staffs. No task was too great, no hours too late, no burden too heavy for ``Jud'' Pearson. . . . Dr. Pearson's integrity, dedication, and deep devotion have been the cause of his excellence in his present position. He was chosen to accompany the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate on their historic trip to China in 1972 and was at that time one the first few American physicians to enter China since World War II. For his exceptional service to the country while serving at the U.S. Capitol, the President of the United States presented him with the Distinguished Service Medal. Following his retirement in 1973, the Pearsons retired to the Sandhills area of North Carolina. Dr. Pearson was a most enthusiastic golfer and a member of Columbia Country Club and the Whispering Pines Country Club. He was also a highly skilled and avid bridge player and was invited to participate as a member of the Wolves Club in Southern Pines. Dr. Pearson was a marvelous and compassionate physician-scholar as well as skilled in his profession. He was a wonderful father and strong patriarch, both generous and kind. But friends and relatives alike will attest that his many significant contributions and achievements pale in comparison to the remarkable example he set as a devoted husband to his beloved wife Emily, to whom he was united in marriage for 67 years, loving her, cherishing her and caring for her until her death at the age of 91. Theirs was truly a marriage made in heaven. He is survived by his daughter, Mrs. Virginia P. Sudders of Tamarac, FL, and his son, CPT Rufus J. Pearson, III, and daughter-in-law, Elizabeth Pearson, of Wheaton, IL; eight grandchildren: Rufus Judson Pearson, IV, Matthew Allen Pearson, Andrew Clinton Pearson, Mrs. Kathryn Elizabeth Pearson Dickson, Mrs. Amy Sudders Wilke, Mrs. Barbara Sudders Andrade, Ms. Marylou Sudders, Mrs. Susan Sudders Kuper; and nine great-grandchildren.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent statements in opposition to the resolution of the Senator from North Dakota be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be a cosponsor of the motion.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join my friend from Hawaii in introducing the Non-foreign Area Retirement Equity Act. I thank Senator Akaka for his hard work on this important legislation that finally brings retirement equity to the thousands of Federal employees in Alaska and Hawaii. Alaska and Hawaii are the only States in which Federal employees do not receive locality pay. Instead, they receive what is called a nonforeign cost of living allowance, or COLA. COLA was put in place in 1949, before Alaska and Hawaii were States. It is based on the cost of living in an area compared to the cost of living in Washington, DC. COLA was not available to employees in the lower 48 States. When locality pay was established to benefit Federal employees in the lower 48, Alaska and Hawaii were not included because they were already under the COLA system. Locality pay brings Federal salaries closer to private industry salaries in an area. The key difference between these two systems is how it affects a Federal employee's retirement. As you know, a Federal employee's retirement is based on their ``high 3'' years of service, usually the final 3 years of their base pay salary. COLA is nontaxable income that cannot exceed 25 percent of the base pay. It is currently being reduced in Alaska and Hawaii by 1 percent each year. Because COLA is not taxed, it is not considered as part of an employee's base pay for retirement purposes. This means an employee in Alaska retires with a much lower ``high 3'' than an equivalent position in the lower 48. Locality pay is taxable income, but is also considered part of an employee's base pay for retirement purposes. This makes a big difference in the amount of retirement benefits an employee receives. Alaska has one of the highest costs of living in the Nation. Our Federal employees need to know they can continue to afford living in the State they call home on the money they receive in their retirement benefits. Many Alaskan Federal employees nearing retirement relocate to the lower 48 in order to receive locality pay for their ``high 3.'' This puts my State at a disadvantage because we are losing highly skilled, seasoned employees. This is an inequitable and outdated system. It is time to bring retirement equity to all States. The bill Senator Akaka and I introduce today with Senators Inouye and Murkowski will do just that. Simply put, this bill will convert Federal employees in our States from the COLA system to the locality pay system. This conversion will not only benefit the Federal employees in these States, it will also save the Government money. The COLA system requires that a survey be conducted every 3 years to determine an area's COLA. Our bill would eliminate these expensive and time consuming surveys. By changing to a locality pay system, employees will pay taxes on income they now receive tax free. Federal employees in Alaska and Hawaii have filed lawsuits to fight the inequity of the COLA system. With this change, the Government will not have to spend time and resources defending against this litigation. The Office of Personnel Management supports replacing COLA with locality pay for all of these reasons. This bill addresses several employee groups with unique circumstances, including postal employees. I am confident we can work closely with the U.S. Postal Service and the postal employee unions to ensure that postal employees in Alaska and Hawaii are protected. Senator Akaka and I hope that all groups affected by this change will contact us so that we can ensure this bill takes everyone's concerns into consideration. Senator Akaka will be holding a hearing on this issue in Hawaii this month. Feedback from that hearing will be vital to improving our bill. It is important we pass this bill before the end of this Congress to bring equality in retirement to all of our Federal employees. I urge Senators to support this bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join my friend from Hawaii in introducing the Non-foreign Area Retirement Equity Act. I thank Senator Akaka for his hard work on this important legislation that finally brings retirement equity to the thousands of Federal employees in Alaska and Hawaii. Alaska and Hawaii are the only States in which Federal employees do not receive locality pay. Instead, they receive what is called a nonforeign cost of living allowance, or COLA. COLA was put in place in 1949, before Alaska and Hawaii were States. It is based on the cost of living in an area compared to the cost of living in Washington, DC. COLA was not available to employees in the lower 48 States. When locality pay was established to benefit Federal employees in the lower 48, Alaska and Hawaii were not included because they were already under the COLA system. Locality pay brings Federal salaries closer to private industry salaries in an area. The key difference between these two systems is how it affects a Federal employee's retirement. As you know, a Federal employee's retirement is based on their ``high 3'' years of service, usually the final 3 years of their base pay salary. COLA is nontaxable income that cannot exceed 25 percent of the base pay. It is currently being reduced in Alaska and Hawaii by 1 percent each year. Because COLA is not taxed, it is not considered as part of an employee's base pay for retirement purposes. This means an employee in Alaska retires with a much lower ``high 3'' than an equivalent position in the lower 48. Locality pay is taxable income, but is also considered part of an employee's base pay for retirement purposes. This makes a big difference in the amount of retirement benefits an employee receives. Alaska has one of the highest costs of living in the Nation. Our Federal employees need to know they can continue to afford living in the State they call home on the money they receive in their retirement benefits. Many Alaskan Federal employees nearing retirement relocate to the lower 48 in order to receive locality pay for their ``high 3.'' This puts my State at a disadvantage because we are losing highly skilled, seasoned employees. This is an inequitable and outdated system. It is time to bring retirement equity to all States. The bill Senator Akaka and I introduce today with Senators Inouye and Murkowski will do just that. Simply put, this bill will convert Federal employees in our States from the COLA system to the locality pay system. This conversion will not only benefit the Federal employees in these States, it will also save the Government money. The COLA system requires that a survey be conducted every 3 years to determine an area's COLA. Our bill would eliminate these expensive and time consuming surveys. By changing to a locality pay system, employees will pay taxes on income they now receive tax free. Federal employees in Alaska and Hawaii have filed lawsuits to fight the inequity of the COLA system. With this change, the Government will not have to spend time and resources defending against this litigation. The Office of Personnel Management supports replacing COLA with locality pay for all of these reasons. This bill addresses several employee groups with unique circumstances, including postal employees. I am confident we can work closely with the U.S. Postal Service and the postal employee unions to ensure that postal employees in Alaska and Hawaii are protected. Senator Akaka and I hope that all groups affected by this change will contact us so that we can ensure this bill takes everyone's concerns into consideration. Senator Akaka will be holding a hearing on this issue in Hawaii this month. Feedback from that hearing will be vital to improving our bill. It is important we pass this bill before the end of this Congress to bring equality in retirement to all of our Federal employees. I urge Senators to support this bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Are we still in morning business?

Mr. STEVENS. Is there any time agreement at the present time?

Mr. STEVENS. What is the situation parliamentarywise?

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. Tribute to Lew Williams, Jr. Our young State, Alaska, this past weekend lost one of our greatest 20th century pioneers when Lew Williams, Jr., the publisher emeritus of the Ketchikan Daily News, died while vacationing in Scottsdale, AZ. Through his six decades in Alaska journalism, Lew brought news to much of southeast Alaska through a series of newspapers which he edited and owned. Five southeast Alaska towns were home to Lew Williams. Juneau was the first, when, as an 11-year-old boy, he delivered the Empire, the paper on which his dad was a reporter. Wrangell was next. His dad was the new editor-owner of the Wrangell Sentinel, and Lew became his 15-year-old apprentice. Later, after Navy service in World War II, Lew bought the paper from his father. Next the beautiful town of Petersburg, AK, claimed Lew when he and his bride Dorothy bought the Petersburg Press. From that time on, Dorothy remained his partner in newspapering, along with helping Lew to set the path that has been followed by his own three children. In 1966, Lew took over the editorship of the Ketchikan Daily News and, a decade later, he and Dorothy bought that paper, settling in for the long run and spending the rest of his life in Ketchikan. When the Daily Sitka Sentinel fell on hard times after major mechanical problems and a fire in 1969, Lew offered assistance to the beleaguered owners. That assistance turned into ownership of that paper also. But in 1975, he sold the Sentinel to the Poulsons, a young couple who had been hired to be editors. Thad Poulson was a former reporter in Juneau and an AP representative in Juneau. He remains with the Sitka paper today. Despite his close ties to these five towns in our State's beautiful southeastern panhandle, Lew was truly a man for all of Alaska. He was one of my close friends, and I mourn his passing. Early in the 1950s, when the larger southeast daily newspapers were against Alaska statehood, Lew Williams joined the small weeklies in our fight to become the 49th State. The concerns that faced Alaska as a territory, and later as a State, Lew adopted as his concerns. No matter where the problem was in our 586,000 square miles, Lew Williams became acquainted with it and tried to do something about the problem. Whether the issue was minerals or timber, fisheries or lands, hundreds of other matters, Lew wrote clearly and forcefully in his paper, as editor, to help his readers understand the solutions he believed were best for all Alaska and Alaskans. Critics who may have disagreed with his stand on any issue were unanimous in their praise for his writings. His columns were carried in papers throughout our State and many throughout the Nation, and they have continued to run, until a few weeks ago, in what we call Anchorage's Voice of the Times which is printed as an op-ed in the Anchorage Daily News. Although Lew's paper, the Ketchikan Daily News, is the smallest daily in Alaska, with a weekend edition also, Lew was in the forefront when it came to technology. He beat out what we call ``the big boys'' in the larger towns when he was the first to offer offset printing and color and among the first with newsroom computers. Along the way, Lew collected dozens of honors for his papers throughout the Nation and for his community service. He served on boards ranging from the chambers of commerce to fish and game advisory boards, school boards, and the Rotary. He was appointed to the board of regents of our University of Alaska. He was a member of the blue ribbon task force for the Alaska National Interest Public Lands Act--we call it ANILCA--which was passed in 1908, and he served on the Alaska Judicial Council and the board of governors of the Alaska Bar Association, although he was not a lawyer. And ``there's more,'' as the television commercial says. Lew founded the Alaska Newspaper Association. He was named businessman of the year for Alaska a few years ago. He founded the Southeast Alaska Conference and for 29 years was an adult leader of Boy Scouts. These honors pale beside Lew's greatest gift to our State, and that is his three children who grew up in newspaper offices. What a tribute to their dad that they adopted his profession and are carrying it on. Lew III, Tena, and Kathy, his children, accepted the reins from their dad in 1990. But he still remained in that office and he gave his time to finish writing and editing a 700-page book called ``Bent Pins and Chains,'' a history of Alaska through its newspapers. He had begun this with the late historian wife of the publisher of the Anchorage Times, Evangeline Atwood, for anyone who is interested in Alaska. Alaskans are fortunate that the vibrant Williams younger generation carries on Lew Williams' commitment to good reporting, fine writing, dedication to community service, and making Alaska the greatest place in the United States to live. Those of us who knew Lew Williams, who shared opinions and laughs and disappointments and triumphs and many wonderful days, are among the luckiest of Alaskans. I always looked up Lew Williams when I was in Ketchikan, and he always had some news and advice for me. I usually followed it. We do have the knowledge we could not have had delivered to us through a better, more loyal friend. I have to say, it is tough to lose a friend like Lew. The joy he brought to my life and to my family's life and to so many others cannot be measured in a statement of this kind. I tell the Senate that everyone makes a statement like this. Not often do we make a statement pertaining to someone who had so much to do with our lives and what we have done. When I first decided to run for the Senate, I went to Ketchikan to talk to Lew Williams to see if he agreed. That was back in 1962. I have known Lew Williams and Dorothy and the children for a long time. Catherine and I send our love and deepest sympathy. We know our friend and their loved one is gone, but he will not be forgotten by any of us. I ask unanimous consent that recent editorials and comments about my friend Lew Williams be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today as this Congress commemorated our National Commemoration of the Days of Remembrance for 2008 in the Rotunda of the Capitol of our Nation, Joshua B. Bolten, the Chief of Staff of President Bush, delivered the keynote address. I note that Josh Bolten noted he will travel with President Bush later this month to Israel to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, which he pointed out occurred just 3 years after the Holocaust. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Bolten's remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we import more than 12.5 million barrels a day of petroleum--over 60 percent of our petroleum energy needs. As a matter of fact, I think it is higher than that now, in the last 2 or 3 days. This is why our economy and the value of the dollar has weakened and our energy costs have skyrocketed. With oil at $117 a barrel--and it is more than that today--the United States spends nearly $1.5 billion each day on foreign oil. That is $533 billion each year that was not invested in our own economy. Instead, that money is being sent--along with jobs--to other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela. For every million barrels of oil we import, 20,000 American jobs are lost. Our country needs a real economic stimulus now. That stimulus will come when we stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars each year to import oil and, instead, invest that money in our own economy by increasing domestic production of our energy resources. The area known as ANWR is a million and a half acres that was reserved for oil and gas development on the Arctic slope in 1980; it is the largest untapped oilfield in North America. We believe that is the largest trap for oil in North America. Oil companies estimate they will spend between $45 billion and $60 billion to develop this area. Combined with the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, which is expected to start soon, it will cost about $40 billion. These resources would deliver a massive influx of jobs and capital investment in the United States. Our economy would be stabilized, and the dollar would be strengthened. ANWR and the Alaska gas pipeline are only the beginning. This infrastructure would help lead to further development of Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf. We have more than two thirds of that Outer Continental Shelf. It has been expanded another 100 miles north of Alaska, as we discovered a further extension of the shelf. The Chukchi Sea holds an estimated 16 billion barrels of oil, and there is an estimated 7 billion barrels in the Beaufort Sea off our State. Bringing these resources on line would add even more jobs and capital to our economy. Full development of ANWR would result in at least 60,000 jobs. Opening ANWR alone would require the construction of a fleet of 19 new tankers to transport the oil to the Lower 48. Those would be American- built tankers. Under the law, they must be--under the Jones Act. This alone would create at least 2,000 direct jobs in the U.S. shipbuilding industry and approximately 3,000 additional jobs in other sectors of our economy. The energy industry estimates the Alaska gas pipeline alone will create 400,000 new jobs nationwide. Senator Schumer made an interesting statement the other day. He suggested that opening ANWR would reduce gas prices by only pennies. He took a shot at the President, saying he takes out the old saw of ANWR, that ANWR would not produce a drop of oil in 10 years, and it is estimated that if we drilled in ANWR, in 20 years, it would reduce the price one penny. I am afraid that shows how little the Senator from New York understands the oil industry. He ignores the long-term economic stimulus domestic production will bring through investment in our own country--raising household incomes and individual buying power, rather than sending money overseas. Senator Schumer would ask other nations, such as Saudi Arabia, to increase their production as a solution to our energy crisis. I agree that increased production would help solve our problem but that production should occur in our own country. I think the Senator should realize what is happening in terms of the oil industry, and the key driver now to the cost of gasoline is not the supply and demand, it is the value of the dollar and the value of oil per se. The value of oil now is represented by paper on the New York Stock Exchange, which has replaced gold. People are speculating in oil. That is also what is causing the price of gasoline to go up at the pump. Senator Schumer should visit NYMEX and ask them to do something about that and stop the speculation in oil. I think it should be unlawful to speculate in anything related to energy in this country. I think soon we will do that. This production has to come from our own country. The position of the Senator from New York would send more money in tax and royalty revenues outside our economy. I don't know how that will strengthen our dollar or lower prices at the pump at all. It is not a question of supply and demand, it is a question of a long-term commitment to restore our capability to produce oil and gas in this country. Had President Clinton not vetoed the ANWR bill before, we would be producing at least 2 million barrels a day more out of Alaska right now. I don't like to be chided by the Senator from New York about why we don't have more production in this country. He is suggesting we ask the foreign producers to produce more oil and send it to us. That will send more money out of the country and take more of our jobs. I don't understand that. In 1995, when we approved the amendment allowing development of the Arctic Plain, President Clinton vetoed that legislation, and we are paying for the consequences of that today. Had he not vetoed the legislation, the Trans Alaska Pipeline--which currently operates at less than 50 percent of capacity--as a matter of fact, it is even worse than that, about 38 percent of capacity. We are sending out about 700,000 barrels a day instead of 2.5 million barrels a day. We could easily have that pipeline--we call it a barrel--full and offset imports and keep our trade deficit down and keep jobs and money in our economy. In the long run--not short run--increased production does affect the price at the pump. We would continue to increase domestic production of oil and that, in effect, would give us competition against the price set by foreign producers, and we would be able to reduce the price at the pump in the long run. Between the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska--which is now ready to be leased--and the resources remaining in Prudhoe Bay, we believe we would have at least 45 billion barrels of oil left to produce. That is an estimate. When they estimated how much oil was in Prudhoe Bay, they estimated 1 billion barrels. We produced 18 billion. I remind the Senate of that. So we have produced more than that, and it is still producing. At full capacity, we ought to be able to deliver at least 2.5 million barrels to the daily market. We have oil from outside the Arctic, by the way. We can reduce the impact of sending more and more money out of the country and affect the American economy as we spend that money here at home. That money would generate tax and royalty revenues, fund research into alternative energy sources, create jobs, help strengthen the dollar, and lower our energy prices in the long run. The weak dollar is what is causing speculation in oil futures and increasing the price of oil and gas at the pump. We need investment in our own country, which develops our own resources, instead of relying on those from other countries. By increasing domestic production, we would meet our own Nation's needs, strengthen the economy, and begin creating jobs and generating revenue, which would be reinvested back into our economy. That is the way to a strong economy, a stable dollar, lower energy prices, and to reduce the demand on foreign oil and the cost of gasoline at the pump. We have to stop sending our money abroad and sending jobs abroad to pay for energy resources, when we can use the money at home to develop the vast resources we have. Alaska is the storehouse of energy for the future. It should not be cast aside as it has been. I hope we will find a way to vote on ANWR this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, last week Jack Rhyner lost his courageous battle against cancer, and Alaska lost a pioneer in our telecommunications industry and I lost a very good friend. As a young man, Jack worked alongside his father, Richard Rhyner, as he founded TelAlaska. At 16, Jack salvaged telephone equipment damaged in the Fairbanks flood of 1967. Using emery boards to smooth out the gold points on the mechanical switches and high-pressure water hoses and brushes, he cleaned and repaired each component. Jack and his dad used that salvaged equipment to build the first telephone system in Fort Yukon. Until then, residents of that village shared a single phone line at the airport. Today, more than 300 residents have private lines in their homes and access to DSL Internet service. In 1982, Jack took leadership of Interior Telephone. Over the years he worked with his wife Donna developing and expanding TelAlaska into a statewide, modern company connecting many of our rural villages to phone service for the first time. Jack's commitment and hard work resulted in dozens of villages--most of them inaccessible by road-- becoming connected to the world by telephone systems. In addition, TelAlaska provides DSL service to 12 villages and cable service to 4 small communities including my own hometown of Girdwood. Jack was appointed to the FCC's Rural Task Force where he worked tirelessly to ensure affordable rates and reliable service in Alaska. As a respected leader in Alaska's telecommunications industry, Jack was often called upon to share his insight into our State's unique communications challenges with Congress, State, and Federal agencies. Jack's contributions to the advancement of telecommunications in Alaska earned him the prestigious Kaguyak Award from the Alaska Telephone Association. The Western Telecommunications Alliance recognized Jack's dedication to rural telecommunications with the President's Award. A true Alaskan, Jack was an avid outdoorsman. He enjoyed spending time with his shooting team which won more than a dozen championships at Birchwood Shooting Park. He would smile when he talked about setting up visits to the communities served by TelAlaska's companies, checking the calendar to ensure that he would arrive in the right season for a day or two of fishing or hunting. It is no surprise, then, that he wanted his ashes spread in the fall at his favorite duck hunting retreat at Cold Bay. Catherine and I send our condolences to Donna and their sons, Ryan and Richard II, and all who knew and loved Jack. He will be missed.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, last Monday evening I had the honor of attending a dinner of the Atlantic Council. At that dinner several distinguished individuals were honored: former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, News Corporation chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch, and Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Distinguished International, Business and Military Leadership respectively. During the evening, there was much discussion about the health of the transatlantic relationship. I was impressed with Rupert Murdock's comments as to how the alliance must change to meet future threats. He went on to say ``We must face up to a painful truth: Europe no longer has either the political will or social culture to support military engagements in defense of itself and its allies. However strong NATO may be on paper, this fact makes NATO weak in practice. And it means that reform will not come from within. Those who want a reformed NATO must look to the outside. In other words, we need to transform this Alliance from a community formed around a map to a community based on common values and a willingness to take joint action in defense of these values. Those who want a reformed NATO must look to the outside. In other words, we need to transform this Alliance from a community formed around a map to a community based on common values and a willingness to take joint action in defense of these values.'' I ask unanimous consent to have Mr. Murdock's entire remarks printed in the Congressional Record. Mr. Rupert Murdoch's Prepared Remarks for the Atlantic Council's 2008 Annual Awards Dinner Good evening. Thank you, Henry, for that kind introduction. Your words remind me of the definition of a diplomat: A man who always remembers his wife's birthday--but never remembers her age. I also want to thank the Atlantic Council for this fine award. By honoring me, you honor the work that News Corporation's 61,000 employees are doing to connect people across oceans, borders, and cultures. And you underscore the importance of a strong private sector for a free society. Few organizations have done more for the preservation of our freedom than this Council. Tonight I want to commend Fred Kempe . . . General Jim Jones . . . the Council Board . . . and all the Council members for the important work you are doing. This Council was founded in the years following World War II. Statesmen on both sides of the Atlantic recognized that the defense of freedom would require the active engagement of a new generation of leaders. By working to keep that Alliance strong, you have helped the West prevail against Soviet communism--and ensure the advance of democracy from the Atlantic to the Urals. Today we can be tempted to bask in our achievements--and wax nostalgic about all we have been through. But this is no time for nostalgia. At this moment in our history, the Alliance that has been built up over decades now finds itself threatened on several fronts: First, by the growing appeal of protectionism on both sides of the Atlantic . . . Second, by the terrorists who target civilians in all our countries . . . and finally, by the crisis of confidence in a Europe that is losing its faith in the values and institutions that have kept us free. We see this crisis of confidence in many areas. Yet nowhere is it more apparent than in the failure of nerve we are seeing in Afghanistan. After the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, it was clear that America and its allies needed to deprive al Qaeda of its safe haven. It was clear that we needed to help the Afghan people replace the Taliban with a free government that would build a more hopeful future for its citizens. Unfortunately, far from reflecting our unity, Nato's entry into Afghanistan has exposed its divisions. Instead of standing together as full and equal partners, a handful of Alliance members are bearing the brunt of the fighting. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that the lack of equal burden sharing threatens the future of the Alliance. And he is right. We must face up to a painful truth: Europe no longer has either the political will or social culture to support military engagements in defense of itself and its allies. However strong NATO may be on paper, this fact makes NATO weak in practice. And it means that reform will not come from within. Those who want a reformed NATO must look to the outside. In other words, we need to transform this Alliance from a community formed around a map to a community based on common values and a willingness to take joint action in defense of these values. In short, a strong and successful Atlantic Alliance will have to ground itself more on shared principles rather than accident of geography. And we need to show we are serious about defending those principles by standing with those who are standing up for them. NATO's agreement to invite Albania and Croatia to become members is a welcome start. So is the somewhat weaker commitment that Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO at some point in the future. But we need to go much further. As a rule, when an organization expands, the expansion dilutes its principles. For today's NATO, it is just the opposite. Expansion is the only hope of invigorating an Alliance weighed down by those who are no longer willing to commit themselves to defend its founding principles. Around the world, there is no shortage of nations who share our values, and are willing to defend them. I am thinking of countries like Australia, which sent troops to Iraq . . . Israel, which has been fighting Islamic terrorism almost since its founding . . . and Japan, which generally follows a more ``Western'' policy than most of Western Europe. Other countries have not reached the level of development these countries enjoy. But some are working hard to get there, and would be strong partners down the road. At the very least, the United States needs to support them as they struggle against the dark forces trying to pull them down. Right now the United States has a test in our own backyard. Colombia is a nation that is fighting poverty, battling the drug lords, and taking on terrorists backed by foreign governments. Its citizens have suffered tremendously from violence, and who want peace and opportunity. And it is being led by a brave and innovative President, who is bringing the rule of law to people who have not known it. What does this brave President ask of us? He asks that we ratify the trade agreement we have negotiated with his nation. By ratifying this agreement, we would open an important market for American goods. We would demonstrate to millions in our hemisphere that the path to prosperity lies in freedom and democracy. And we would give strong moral support to a leader struggling to bring hope and opportunity to his people in an important part of the world. Everyone knows this. Even the New York Times says the Democratic Congress should ratify this trade deal. Instead, Speaker Pelosi has effectively put off the bill by not scheduling a vote. We need to make clear to the leadership in Congress needs to know what killing this trade deal would mean. Throughout Colombia, a defeat for the trade deal would be confirmation that the United States is not an ally you could count on. Throughout Latin America, a defeat for the trade deal would be exploited by thugs like Hugo Chavez, who would tell the people, ``See, the Americans will never accept you as equals and partners.'' And throughout the world, a defeat for the trade deal would be taken as another sign that the U.S. will not stand by its friends when the going gets tough. The Mexican ambassador to the United States puts it this way: ``The most important geopolitical mistake the United States could do today . . . is not ratifying that treaty.'' The world is watching. The same values that we are trying to uphold in the Atlantic Alliance are at stake now in Colombia. And if we fail to support them in Colombia, it will be harder to revive them in the Alliance. Let me conclude with a little story. I was born in Australia . . . I received my university education in Britain . . . and I have made my home in America. Over a long and I hope productive life, I have learned that shared values are more important than shared borders. If we continue to define ``the West'' or ``the Alliance'' as a strictly geographical concept, the Alliance will continue to erode. But if we define the West as a community of values, institutions, and a willingness to act jointly, we will revive an important bastion of freedom--and make it as pivotal in our own century as it was in the last. Thank you for having me. And thank you again for this fine award.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, to help end the growing problem of phantom traffic, today I introduce the ``Signaling Modernization Act of 2008.'' Senators Inouye, Smith, Dorgan, Thune, Pryor, and Snowe cosponsored this bill. Phantom traffic is a phone call sent over the telephone network without the identifying information carriers use to bill each other. When I call home to Alaska, that call is transmitted over several different carriers. Phone companies charge each other for the use of their networks. The funds generated by these charges are particularly important to carriers in Alaska and throughout rural America. Phantom traffic prevents carriers from collecting the funds they are owed, impacting universal service and raising rates for rural customers. It's time Congress pulled back the mask on phantom traffic to discover who or what is behind this problem that has plagued carriers for several years. The Federal Communications Commission is actively analyzing the issue, but it is time we find a solution. Yesterday the Commerce Committee heard from a member of the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association from rural Missouri. He told us that 11 percent of their traffic did not have sufficient information for billing, causing them to lose about $37 per line per year. This loss of revenue makes it more difficult for rural carriers to deploy broadband. Our bill will require all calls from voice communications service providers to contain enough information to allow carriers to bill each other, including voice over internet protocol providers offering 2-way service and providers transiting the traffic between originating and terminating providers. Our bill also directs the FCC to establish rules implementing this requirement within 12 months of enactment, and gives it the authority to adopt enforcement provisions. Phantom traffic steals from rural carriers and customers. I hope Congress and the FCC will look at this issue closely and put an end to phantom traffic.